Stephen Metcalf on Nozick and “The Liberty Scam”

"Libertarianism" places one—so believes the libertarian—not on the political spectrum but slightly above it, and this accounts for its appeal to both the tricorne fringe and owners of premium real estate.

Yowza.

According to Metcalf, Robert Nozick's anti-distributive Anarchy, State, and Utopia almost single handedly revived libertarianism from what it was after WWII -- the "Weltanschauung of itinerant cranks" (Austrian economists included) -- into a popular movement:

To the entire left, Nozick, in effect, said: Your social justice comes at an unacceptable cost, namely, to my personal liberty.

When we post our upcoming episode on Plato's Republic you'll notice that the concept of individual liberty seems to be missing. The justice of a city or a soul is a matter of each of their parts (whether appetites and reasons or various kinds of human beings) performing their functions well and not interfering with the functions of the other parts: the city has a good, and the good of individuals seems hardly to be on the table. There's no explicit argument to the effect that the good of the city ensures the happiness of individuals; if anything, the measure of happiness that citizens get depends on whether it serves thegood of the polis. (Anarchy, incidentally is typically paired with Rawls' A Theory of Justice, but the Republic makes an interesting foil as well).

But for Nozick, "'there is no social entity with a good that undergoes sacrifice for its own good. There are only individual people, different individual people, with their own individual lives.'" (Of course, one might be just as much an ontological skeptic about organisms as about societies -- something Nozick doesn't address).

Metcalf's piece is long, but here's the central argument: Nozick can only assign liberty the overriding value he does, argues Metcalf, by assuming that absent government interference, recompense naturally lines up with talent and hard work, and so to interfere would always be unjust. Which is to say that the markets naturally find a way to give everyone what they deserve. In an ideal world that might be the case: but ideal conditions cannot be established (just as they can't for a socialist utopia). When we are closer to ideal conditions for liberty, it is ironically because redistributive justice has established them. According to Metcalf, the fact that during the post-WWII boom those conditions (for matching up recompense with talent) were as close as ever to ideal was underwritten by "high marginal taxation and massive transfers of private wealth in the name of the very 'public good' Nozick decried as nonexistent." In other words, markets don't function according to the libertarian ideal unless some very un-libertarian foundations have been established to help them function that way. And because intellectuals and university professors benefited from this boom as much as anyone, they (like Nozick) falsely assumed that their personal success were evidence that the marketplace naturally rewards talent. Once those redistributive foundations were attenuated, so were the conditions for liberty (and for the tendency of recompense to follow talent). Today, the banking meltdown and the working conditions for white collar professionals make it clear that -- given the liberty -- the asshats (to justly appropriate Mark's word) will take the talented for all they're worth.

Finally:

Every thinking person is to some degree a libertarian, and it is this part of all of us that is bullied or manipulated when liberty is invoked to silence our doubts about the free market. The ploy is to take libertarianism as Orwell meant it and confuse it with libertarianism as Hayek meant it; to take a faith in the individual as an irreducible unit of moral worth, and turn it into a weapon in favor of predation.

The “liberty” promoted by libertarians is a scam. It’s a utopian fantasy that assumes individuals acting in rational self-interest will create an economically just society in which people are rewarded according to what they contribute, and a free market naturally will generate and distribute what goods and services people need.

Comments

You beat me to posting this, Wes, which is fortunate, as you did a much better job. My favorite quote from the piece:

“With the solemn invocation of individual lives, the liberal humanist ought to push away from the table, take a deep breath, and ask whether any of this remarkable assault is true. Can it really be that eliminating the income tax shows maximum moral respect for others? I thought a fraction of a rich man’s fortune is to the rich man only money but to a starving man is freedom. Am I a moral idiot?”

This, along with 99% of the arguments on this page completely misunderstand the thrust of libertarianism. It’s a deontological argument. It’s the coercive means by which the money is transferred that is the issue. You’re making a consequentialist justification which, as far as the original objection goes, is irrelevant. Prove first that the taxation and redistribution via the state apparatus is the only or at least best means of redistributing wealth and that it ultimately does so effectively. Has poverty been reduced since the Great Society? It’s an ends vs means argument not a straight up moral disagreement. The inability of seemingly intelligent leftists to understand the distinction is astounding.

Just wanted to step in, all this time after the conversation has come and gone, to mention how pleased I am to read someone else who seems to appreciate that socialist/liberal economics serves a conversation not really over moral ends, which we all seem broadly in agreement upon, but over the means by which those ends can be practically manifest.

Liberals (in the classic English and indeed Hayekian sense) are not greedy, immoral thugs out to justify their bourgeoisie dominance, rather they are (optimistically) deeply concerned with seeking a politics which can incorporate the desires of those seeking change without the need for violence.

I guess my takeaway from such a post as this is that: the distinction between just one-more-in-10,000 daily political blograg opinions culled from some other blograg vs a blog appropriate for posting on a website dedicated to quality philosophical discussion in a manner rare to the WWW is the mere mention of a classical Greek thinker in the politico’s post.

Sorta reminds me of those darned scientists-cum-philosophers of scientism, with their drop of a Spinoza or Descartes.

I think you miss my point, here about politics, and it is the same point I would make to PEL regarding religion…There are zillions of newspaper editorial pages, cable networks, blog/forum discussion sites, etc., all filled daily w/ the ephemeral topics of politics and religion. Many of the websites are specifically devoted to politics and religion. This stuff is like gossip – only of value till something more spectacular is blurted out tomorrow.

The uniqueness of what was started as a trio of former philosophy grad students offering 2 hr. seminar discussions on traditional philosophical subjects of the nature of ‘the enduring questions’ has staying power – Quality.

However, the too-many-to-keep-track-of interim blog posts by the trio and guests too often merely duplicate ephemeral political/religious opinions that really could be directed to the comboxes at other blogsites instead. As it stands, when there are good interim PEL posts ripe for serious combox discussion that would further the value of the podcast topic, the comboxeses never develop as they appear to become yesterday’s business.

For certain it is not my site, and you can do as you please. I was attracted here by the quality of the podcasts and the inklimg that this was fertile ground to look at works of philosophy in a non-standard, non-academically topic sanctioned manner. Mark has cautioned me to lighten up, as this is all for fun, and for sure the plethora of ephemeral daily blog posts attests this to be so. But, the hard-won profundity of the serious tri-weekly podcasts is not well-served by shallow follow-up banter alone. It deserves a well-fostered arena for serious follow-up commentary.

Burl, I get your complaint about discussions disappearing down into the pages of our blog posts. If we can figure out a way in WordPress to make current/active discussions visible to readers w/o creating a big hierarchical forum like a million others already on the web, we’ll look into doing that. In the meantime, we already have something like that: our Facebook group, where the most recently commented upon items always stay at the top, so feel free to move over there to initiate new threads on Whitehead and physics or whatever and see if you get any takers.

Our steadily increasing traffic on this blog indicates to me that our posting strategy is working just fine. My goal with this is to provide an ongoing magazine a la http://www.openculture.com/, our issue now not being too many posts but not enough.

Actually, one of the easiest ways to preserve discussion is with email updates.

Wes linked to the League of Ordinary Gentlemen. It’s a great blog (blog-zine) and one of the things they do is have a small box that you can check when commenting, and that will then automatically email you the content of other comments as they are posted. So you don’t have to check back, you’ll just be notified when someone else comments and what they say.

I think both you and they use WordPress so it shouldn’t be that hard to implement.

But I enjoy the growing volume of posts so keep up the great work guys.

Great post Wes. I would love to hear how you might connect this problem of Naturalism in Libertarian political assumptions to Naturalism in the sciences where scientists and supporters tend not to think through the political consequences of their ‘scientific commitment’ to a Naturalist world-view.

If I may take the ‘liberty’ to hitch my post questioning Naturalism to what you’ve isolated as a central problematic assumption in the Libertarian belief-system (via Metcalf): “absent government interference, recompense *naturally* lines up with talent and hard work, and so to interfere would always be unjust.” It is precisely on this sort of point that I want to make the provocative suggestion that Naturalism may be evil insofar as it is against reason and thought:

I apologize for not understanding the intent to do a digital magazine. I am working from a model more like a forum commenter interacting w/ other commenters.

Is there really any need for the comboxes, then? (I actually raised this question before.) Just having the daily blog post(s) and then counting the hits should be sufficient. Maybe have a thumbs up/down to measure reader sentiment.

As you know, I have given up on generating interest in the unknown ANW – I am content to just hold his insights close throughout the game. I can draw reassurance knowing that the ANW Scholastics at Cleremont were no more successful than I at generating an interest in his work.

And totally forget about Physics! Einstein is God now spoken; that book is sealed shut and under armed protection.

I’ll add that, being a political junkie and policy technophile myself, I read what I read because of who it’s coming from half the time.

Having established credibility, sophisticated reasoning, and intersting voices, I come to the PEL in part because I am interested precisely in what you three plus Daniel, Tom and co. have to say on various subjects.

Only 1 yr of applied physics for engr and sciences. All I know of relativity and QM is from web self study over the last year. Lots of BBC and NASA vids and most of the 50-60 hrs of Leo Suskind’s online courses. The matrix math we use in structural engineering helps me follow Suskind’s heavy math enough to vaguely get the gist.

I must say that delving into the nature of quantuum particle behavior gave me a better underatanding of why ANW sees actual events as his fundamental units of reality.

Your wish has been partially granted, Burl. See the “recent comments” widget just added to the right side of the page. (I will take your question about why have comment boxes at all as merely rhetorical. Obviously, if we were uninterested in reader comments, we wouldn’t participate in these discussions ourselves.)

No, not rhetorical, at all. In a magazine, readers give comments that appear in a special section in the next issue. They are not meant to generate lengthy in-depth discussion of an article. Readers of an article are under no illusion that any comment they wish to spend time writing will be responded to (if it even makes the next issue).

But an online combox is, as I said, appears no different than a Reply text box in a forum thread, where it is encouraged that all forum members spend time interacting.

Yes, you guys do occasionally reply to select combox posts, but more often than not, you are more prone to create a whole new PEL blog post than to sustain a combox and probe an issue more deeply.

It might be helpful to state up front that any pithy comments to the PEL author of a given blog would be appreciated, as it will help them in creating future blog topics. In other words, make it clear what you’ve explained to me today – that comments serve as feedback, and are not intended to generate sustained interactions.

This is not a slight, now. I get your wishes for PEL, whereas I was mistaken before. Spelling things out will help others who may come along w/ misapprehensions like I had.

I don’t see why the two goals are mutually exclusive. Yes, we want a site that gives people a reason to tune in regularly to alert them to philosophical resources on the web. Yes, we also want a thriving discussion community, which ideally means that there are enough commenters that a decent discussion on any particular topic can be maintained without the necessary participation of the post’s author (depending on the nature of the post, of course).

In response to this thread, we just updated the “Forum” tab on this page to include a different display of the recent comments, which should also facilitate continuation of interesting topics, and should help especially when someone who just listened to an old episode weighs in on that.

Ideally, instead of just listing recent comments, I wouldn’t mind an “active discussions” display, so, e.g. 15 new comments on one topic wouldn’t crowd out other recent discussions, but we’ll have to think more on how best to do that (short of a full blown forum that gets disconnected from the blog itself).

Seems to me… Religion and politics are of course taboo topics in the USA. But genuine philosophical reflections on political philosophy are rather hard to come by. More is good–just keep it honest and fair and let alternative views have a voice.

Libertarianism (a la Nozick) has got away with murder. I liked the libertarian apex of the Sopranos, but they still belong in jail. On the other hand, don’t throw out the baby of libertarianism with the criminal and unethical bath water.

Wes, see also Julian Sanchez on the ways Metcalf’s article fails… eg. by misunderstanding or mischaracterizing the nature of thought experiments in general, and Nozick’s Wilt Chamberlain in particular.

The Metcalf reeks of garbage because it’s a smear-job rather than an honest inquiry. And no matter their political angle, smear jobs SHOULD reek to every reasoning, thoughtful, curious, democratic mind.

I’ve gotta admit, I find it disheartening that you guys are so quick to accept Metcalf’s polemic as a legitimate and “well-written” argument. Where I come from, factuality, fairness, and persuasiveness are marks of eloquence and Metcalf’s article lacks a measure of each.

Just because Julian Sanchez _says_ Metcalf’s article fails, doesn’t _mean_ that Metcalf’s article fails. It wouldn’t be getting so much traction on the web if it truly failed. Sanchez himself seems all too happy to do a “smear-job” on Metcalf, and is only able to pick at certain points mentioned in the Metcalf piece, rather than actually dissect all of Metcalf’s central premises or conclusions.

Just because you don’t accept Metcalf’s conclusions (or perhaps his premises), doesn’t mean the article isn’t well-written or contain legitimate arguments. There are plenty of legitimate and well-written arguments with which I disagree. In fact, I usually find myself disagreeing with most legitimate and well-written polemics (say, half the stuff I read written by Christopher Hitchens). But that doesn’t mean I don’t benefit from reading it. But thinking the other person is incorrect or has committed logical/factual errors doesn’t mean I have to demonize the other person or consider their argument “garbage.” Put another way, polemics are almost by definition unfair, but that doesn’t mean polemics can’t be well-written.

By the way, Metcalf _did_ have the grace to grant Sanchez’s point on his own podcast, while at the same time citing his own evidence to the contrary. And even Sanchez had to grant that Nozick had softened his position since publishing _Anarchy, State, and Utopia_:http://www.slate.com/id/2295829/

Metcalf also made clear that he had great respect for Nozick, and thought _AS&U_ was an important book worth reading. So, again, to my point, it’s both OK and possible to strongly disagree with someone’s arguments, without having to delve into invective.

“Just because …. It wouldn’t be getting so much traction on the web if it truly failed.” — I did not claim to agree with Sanchez, I merely recommended Wes read Julian Sanchez since Sanchez had offered insightful critique of the article by articulating ways *he* believes the article fails. Nevertheless, it did fail to me but not for (all) the same reasons it failed for Sanchez. And I do think it failed to many other folks too. Happily, it failed in productive ways, and it is getting traction precisely because it failed in these ways.

My own sense of the article is that it’s a big, creaky, shiny complex carnival ride sprung to life in the midway where the popcorn vendor usually sets up. Its painted dragons are meant to intimidate or excuse the already squeamish and jittery. Its operator, a tweaked-out carnie with no sense of a history, merely outlandish stories he tells himself to justify his machinic duties. But I do agree: it is nice to see a shiny ride instead of a popcorn stand.

It fails to me because it failed to inform me about libertarianism. I don’t know an awful lot, but some of what I already know about Nozick, Hayek & Mises is factually misrepresented (ie. wrong. See the intro hyperbole of the central conceit-Nozick never “gave up” on a “movement”. If Metcalf had wanted to convince me of something he shouldn’t have overshot his first load for impact instead of accuracy). It also failed to convince me that libertarianism is in any way “repugnant” (Metcalf’s final evaluation) and it failed to convince me that Metcalf was anyone who knew what he was talking about.

Namely, it failed in this regard because the ad hominem attacks Wes noted below (see: the dismissal of Hayek), the gross mischaracterization/exaggeration of historical & political contexts (see: the odd pseudohistorical midsection portraying libertarianism as a coherent, successful political movement whose intellectual forbears are culpable for “the election of Reagan”, and, as it is implied by “where it stops, nobody knows”, the current economic state), and the strawman hitjob (on a misrepresentation of the Wilt Chamberlain passage as an allegorical defense of free-market economy rather than an illustrative critique of patterned theories of justice) were all too *obvious*.

Don’t get me wrong, I love well-argued polemics as much as the next gal (and, honey, you’d know if I got the notion to “delve into invective” with you). But if we’re talking full-on article failure here, it’s not that I disagree with any of his particular claims, conclusions or premises, it’s that I read no coherent or legitimate argument worthy of being agreed or disagreed with because so many of his particular moves are obvious fallacies. All I read by the end were the words of a tweaked out carnie machinically pushing his buttons and pointing at the dragons on his shiny but creaky ride.

And I’ll just let this stand as a half-answer to #26 and to Wes below. #26, for more examples of what I disagree with, see also Rian in #27 on the conflation of consequentialist & deontological libertarianism, add the conflation of libertarianism with neoliberalism & of civil libertarianism and free-market libertarianism, etc., etc, and add Metcalf’s condescending caricature of all libertarians as arrogant, selfish and deluded, especially in the obnoxious snark of “–oh wait, that *is* libertarianism–” that closes the first paragraph.

And I haven’t listened to the podcast (didn’t know it was assigned) but I read that somewhere along the line Metcalf uses the word “hateful” to describe libertarianism. I don’t know the context for his comment, but the only thing I’ve ever called “hateful” was the way my 5th grade substitute teacher Ms. Napier yelled at us in class one day for dropping our pencils or for having to go to the bathroom. Even then, I didn’t think to consider that she might be mourning her daughter who died in a car wreck or angry at her husband for not picking up the dry cleaning. It was a sloppy characterization of one human on one day, but on that day, she was hateful. Seems there’s no sense in such sloppy characterization of a set of philosophical ideas. Of course, I’ll listen to the podcast and revise my evaluation if necessary.

Also: In case you were wondering, I do not identify myself as libertarian, but I find something appealing, useful, and very likely accurate in a libertarian political ontology.

On a sidenote, what’s with the compulsion to lick Metcalf’s boots, Daniel? What magical incantation in his article has enraptured you to the point of near-sycophancy?

I think you and I have different conceptions of what constitutes “delving into invective” as well as what it means for an article to “succeed” or “fail”. Given your sidenote, I fear you’re more interested in a flame-war than a simple discussion of the merits or failings of Metcalf’s piece, so I’m not sure there’s value in proceeding.

That said, I think an opinion piece succeeds if it offers engaging prose, and explains why its author has a particular opinion on a particular subject. That’s why I can read editorials in The Nation, Reason, and the National Review without getting too worked up over whether or not the editorialists are “right”. In short, I can enjoy a well-written article or essay without having to agree with all or any of it. That goes for Matt Taibbi, PJ O’Rourke, Christopher Hitchens, or Stephen Metcalf.

Now, if you’re seriously asking why I didn’t find Metcalf’s article to be as scorn-worthy as you found it (which I think more accurately depicts the dynamic here)…well…I can add little to Wes’ substantive comments, so I’ll simply “ditto” those for the time being.

If I have time or interest, I’ll see if I can come up with my own post about what I like about Metcalf’s piece, despite its flaws and excesses.

Flame wars are for folks without senses of humor, man. Please do find the time to post what you like about the article, especially what you agree with, what it taught you (that is accurate), what it made you think about that you hadn’t considered before, and how it’s convinced you of something you didn’t believe before you read it. Those are my criteria for “success”.

As it is, all I’ve read from you so far are criticisms of others’ interpretations, and vague, general defenses of engaging prose and the joy of being entertained. <<Not flame. I am genuinely curious as to how your mind works and your sources of interest sans dittos.

HPG: Metcalf’s piece can be well-written and entertaining without being entirely correct.

Criticisms of its ad hominem attacks (as in the dismissal of Hayek) are fair. But these are besides the larger point; there’s also a reasonable central argument that can go one way or another based on the empirical evidence. I outlined that argument in the post, and as far as I know the empirical evidence supports it — although I’m relatively agnostic and open to persuasion.

But most responses to Metcalf are worried about sideline quibbles; whether Nozick renounced libertarianism or Hayak was influenced by benefactors are interesting, but not central. (Sanchez points out that “Nozick always thought of himself as a libertarian in a broad sense”; but almost all libertarians in a broad sense, as Metcalf points out).

Metcalf’s understanding of Nozick’s Wilt Chamberlain argument is more central. Sanchez has some fair criticisms of Metcalf here (thanks for the link). Unfortunately, he hasn’t addressed Metcalf’s larger (and more interesting) thesis — which ought to be the first line of attack for libertarians.

I am not a libertarian, but I think Anarchy, State and Utopia is a book anyone who wants to argue with libertarianism has to read. It can’t be dismissed with a collection of half-baked rants.

It is possible that Metcalf has read AS and U but if it was recently there is no indication in his piece that he understands the arguments even superficially.

He doesn’t seem to realize that there are consequentialist and deontological arguments for libertarianism. Nozick is firmly in the deontological camp, so certain arguments don’t work against him. Metcalf shouldn’t be discussing Nozick or libertarianism at a dinner party, let alone trying to wrestle with it in a public forum.

I’ve read Anarchy, State and Utopia and was far more sympathetic to it at the time than Rawls’ A Theory of Justice. I don’t think that even Metcalf was claiming it was a collection of half-baked rants (I had the impression Metcalf respected Nozick).

I think you may have misunderstood Metcalf, and perhaps agree with him more than you know. On his podcast, Metcalf described Nozick without irony as a “terrific philosopher,” a “fascinating guy,” and that no “left-winger” could walk away from AS&U unchanged. He certainly didn’t dismiss AS&U; he was instead taking a concerted effort to pick apart some of the book’s arguments. I’m not sure why that deserves scorn. Whether Metcalf failed or succeeded, partially or completely, it’s interesting and telling to me how much vitriol Metcalf has stirred up simply by making an argument.

Merely asserting that Metcalf’s rants are half-baked and that he has no authority to voice a public opinion about Nozick is unpersuasive as a criticism. What makes any of us qualified to discuss Nozick or libertarianism in public, then? Or anyone else covered on the PEL blog/podcast?

Finally, the fact that Metcalf hasn’t thoroughly deconstructed every aspect of libertarianism in 5000 words seems a little unfair. His piece already feels like the editor had to whittle it down to get it that “small”. I’m just happy that Slate tried to go a little highbrow for once, rather than its usual pap. I think that should be encouraged, whatever the result.

What makes someone qualified to discuss Nozick is the ability to demonstrate that they understood his book, actually not a very high bar. Metcalf did not demonstrate that he had digested Nozick’s main points. For that reason he should not be writing about him. I just cringed through the entire piece. If there is any place where Metcalf makes a serious critique of Nozick’s book please point it out to me.

I don’t think Metcalf should have deconstructed every nuance of libertarianism in his piece, but he should have displayed an understanding of those aspects of libertarianism that he chose to discuss. Metcalf doesn’t realize that criticizing ‘libertarianism’ isn’t necessarily the same thing as criticizing Nozick and vice versa. For instance if Nozick’s moral arguments in favor of the minimal state were flawed it could still be true that libertarian economic arguments (hayek, friedman etc.) are valid. You can’t argue with deontological and consequentialist libertarianism in the same breath.

I’d also like to say that I don’t have scorn for Metcalf. Instead his piece makes me sad, because I’m afraid someone who hasn’t read Nozick will get the wrong ideas about his book.

Good rejoinder, thanks. One place where Metcalf makes a serious critique of Nozick’s book is his takedown of the Wilt Chamberlain example. If it fails, please explain why.

My prediction is that “AS&U” sales are going to skyrocket in direct response to Metcalf’s piece and all the discussion it’s stoked. In that sense, Metcalf is the best thing to happen to the Nozick estate in a while.

When we’re looking at the Wilt Chamberlain thought experiment we should be asking ourselves two things. Is the thought experiment a good illustration of Nozick’s underlying point? And is Nozick’s underlying point about the unsustainability of patterned end states correct? This means that nothing in AS&U lives or dies on the Wilt Chamberlain thought experiment. The thought experiment could be 100% flawed and the underlying point about patterned end states could still be 100% correct, that’s not to mention the many other points raised in the book that having nothing to do with Wilt Chamberlain.

From p. 163 of AS&U, “The point illustrated by the Wilt Chamberlain example…is that no end-state principle of justice or distributional patterned principle of justice can be continuously realized without continuous interference with people’s lives.”

Now I just reread the part of Metcalf’s article where he discusses the Chamberlain thought experiment. He says a few words about capitalism, he says a few words about how we feel a “black ball player” should be getting his due. What Metcalf does not do is relate the thought experiment to the underlying principle or — if he disagrees with the underlying principle — explain to us how a particular distribution of income can be justly maintained.

I must also say again after rereading the piece that it seems quite clear to me that Metcalf does not even have a superficial understanding of the philosophical ideas (right or wrong) in AS&U

The problem is that everyone is getting overly focused on making this into a an issue of misinterpretation and “but Nozick didn’t mean that!”

The basic political point being made is that, a bunch of people think that most wealth is acquired in a morally blameless way. We don’t cite Chamberlain today, but usually Bill Gates. Bill Gates earned his billions…how could you take that away from him (say with a 90% marginal tax rate)!?

That is the crux, and whether Metcalf rightfully or wrongfully claims that we owe that libertarian undercurrent to something Nozick wrote or said, that is a popular sentiment in American political discourse.

It is funny for me looking in from here. In Australia we seemed to have dodged most of the fallout from the Libertarian critique of Gubmint. Small population, large resource sector, and probably still a bit of a backwater before the 80s. I think I have mentioned before that I had never even heard of Ayn Rand until the Simpsons mentioned Atlas Shrugged. Not sure what the future holds though, as the current conservatives seem to increasingly look to the US for ideological stimulation.

Two quotes from the article spoke to me:

“The key, I think, is recognizing the two mysteries as twin expressions of a single, primal, human fallibility: the need to attribute success to one’s own moral substance, failure to sheer misfortune.”

“Meanwhile, the “libertarian” right moves to take the risks of unemployment, disease, and, yes, accidents of birth, and devolve them entirely onto the responsibility of the individual. It is not just sad; it is repugnant.”

These sum up my usual response to the Libertarian position. The idea that the good fortune of my birth makes me ‘morally’ better or more virtuous, than the mentally ill guy begging change outside my office building seems both wrong and repugnant to me. For this reason, no matter whether the article misrepresents Nozick or not, I can’t help but agree with the sentiment.

Did you hear what Mitt Romney recently said about privatizing FEMA? He said, “Every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, that’s the right direction. And if you can go even further and send it back to the private sector, that’s even better.” You see how this is framed? The states are better than the feds because they are closer to the people and the private sector is even better because it goes further toward local control by the people, according to Romney’s free-market-loving logic. This struck me as a concrete example of the shift from libertarianism as a principled stance toward the dignity of each individual to libertarianism as a rationalization of large-scale predatory capitalism, which is anything but local. This reasoning is typical among free-market Republicans. As a matter of fact, they have rigged things so that corporations like Koch Industries are counted as a “small” business because it has a small number of owners, namely the two Koch brothers – who happen to be two of the richest guys on the planet. In other words, they sell the notion of free-market capitalism by conjuring up some Rockwellian image of mom and pop standing in front of the General Store but what they’re really protecting is multi-national global corporations, which are anything but local or democratic. As Thomas Frank pointed out, that’s “what’s the matter with Kansas”. What a scam. How depressing. It’s some kind of Stockholm syndrome, I guess.

The term “libertarian” has essentially been hijacked by the corporate state and the oligarchs who use it to create a mythology of “individual liberty” that merely furthers their corporate agenda. Creating, or at least promoting, such myths is what fascists do, along with other self serving manipulations.

It’s awfully nice of you to try to cheer me up, Daniel, but the fact that Mitt is cynically pandering to the primary voter only makes it worse. If the statement is expected to have wide appeal, he’ll say it regardless of its merit or his actual views, if any. And why? That’s the saddest part. They do it because it works.

“I don’t think I can vote for someone like that,” Pennsylvania Republican Eric Tolbert said. “He says he’s sorry, but how do I know that’s the real Mitt Romney? What happens if he gets elected and tries to help sick people again?”

Now that PEL has established its intent to follow in the footsteps of mainstream ‘philosophy’ blogsites by arguing over the political and religious implications in the latest issue of the Times or Slate or whatever, it might interest you all to mix it up a bit w/ my favorite ex-atheist, ex-libertarian, now uber-conservative Thomist.

Let me conclude by acknowledging that high-church libertarians, following Nozick and Hayek, are (mostly) honest about the market’s inability to distribute fair outcomes. That is not what the market is for; fair enough. But if the intellectual right truly is committed to high-church libertarianism, of the kind that argues market outcomes may be unjust but do maximize negative liberty, then the left has an easy task: point out the injustices, then allow voters to choose between justice and negative liberty. But the left has so committed itself to market economics, to squaring the circle of Keynes and Hayek (and basking its gifted Third Way eminences—men such as Larry Summers and his mini-me Brad Delong—in numinous intellectual authority) that it’s lost its touch at pointing out even the most grotesque market injustices. The point of my piece was less to say, “Look at these godawful libertarians,” than to say, “Look what we have done to ourselves.”

“Nozick can only assign liberty the overriding value he does, argues Metcalf, by assuming that absent government interference, recompense naturally lines up with talent and hard work, and so to interfere would always be unjust”

No, no, no and no. Nozick never argues that absent government interference recompense naturally lines up with talent and hard work – his argument is that recompense has no natural alignment. There is no such thing as distributive justice, what is a just distribution is whatever distribution arises from free choices. How could anyone read Nozick and not grasp that central point ? (Nor, moving from ethics to economics,, does free market-ism make any claim whatever that recompense is the reward for talent and hard work. Talent and hard work may go unrewarded if its output does not serve market demand – good luck and being in the right place at the right time may be rewarded if it does serve market demand. Free market-ism is not a theory of reward for the quality of inputs.)

The injustice, returning to ethics, of interference is nothing to do with “recompense”, it is entirely to do with “interference” merely being another name for coercion – the evil of which is well understood in the context of rape and slavery, but – apparently – not understood when it comes to commercial relations between consenting adults.

Sorry, but I found Metcalf’s original piece so far short of what a thinking person should spend their time reading and considering that I was heartbroken to discover that he’d been booked to help walk you guys through Nozick. There’s a not bad Economist piece from 21 June 2011 that gets at some of the genuinely awful analysis, and my efforts to provide a comprehensive critique turned into much too large a project to do justice to, the flaws in his article were so numerous. “Myriad” is probably the word I want here.

About The Partially Examined Life

The Partially Examined Life is a philosophy podcast by some guys who were at one point set on doing philosophy for a living but then thought better of it. Each episode, we pick a text and chat about it with some balance between insight and flippancy. You don’t have to know any philosophy, or even to have read the text we’re talking about to (mostly) follow and (hopefully) enjoy the discussion

Become a PEL Citizen!

As a PEL Citizen, you’ll have access to a private social community of philosophers, thinkers, and other partial examiners where you can join or initiate discussion groups dedicated to particular readings, participate in lively forums, arrange online meet-ups for impromptu seminars, and more. PEL Citizens also have free access to podcast transcripts, guided readings, episode guides, PEL music, and other citizen-exclusive material. Click here to join.